Editor,

Let’s really talk about clear cuts.

As many have noticed, we are seeing more and more slash-clearcutting of our established forest ecosystems on the South End.

The practices are appearing less and less managed with significant flooding, lackadaisical replanting and invasive species moving in to establish these slash and burn sites.

These “forestry” permits are typically issued at the state level by the Department of Natural Resources, but as development pressures intensify, Island County should immediately seek to assert more influence on this process.

Most of the state’s clear cut parameters were designed for large swath forestry stands on the mainland. We are a small island ecosystem, in tight community and thus should no longer be running clear cuts at the same scale in complete disconnect from those unique facts.

While there are a few parameters/limits established for an island, our community should have more input in this process and the county should push the state for more jurisdictional consideration in island communities like ours.

Several mainland developers are currently making a practice of pulling these state-level clear cut permits with little/no community dialogue and rolling on to our island with aggressive/devastating practices.

Then, they move to rezone the property out of dedicated forest land and in to intense development. To be clear, this is not a philosophical statement about general forestry practices.

I’m simply advocating for a more sensible approval consideration around removal of established forest ecosystems on an ecologically sensitive island. We need changes that allow the county and community to have more involvement in a process that at least acknowledges impact to our sensitive and unique island ecosystem.

It’s also worth noting that developers are hearing the loud and open call for “more housing” and are rolling in under that flag, often with cheap cookie-cutter/suburban-style neighborhood designs in mind.

Many of these developments do little to make housing more affordable for the true “working Whidbey,” but they have the political wind at their back and are barreling forward, often right through our healthy forest lands.

While I am all for policies that lead to innovative affordable housing options, like truly incentivizing auxiliary housing units on already established home sites, we ought to inject some more balance in the direction we are currently heading.

Otherwise, we are likely to turn around in this decade and see the ecologically resilient South End clear cut, paved and looking a lot like the suburbs.

Let us speak assertively to our representatives now and remind them how much we value this resilient island ecosystem … and that we expect it to be respected and protected in both policy and practice.

Jake Stewart

Clinton